Thought provoking - glad to see McGilchrist in there. ps has Schellenberger acknowledged your existence yet? I have tried to raise awareness through his collegues but no joy...
Wow - this statement I believe is the definition of a psychopath:
~
"Any thing I can take from others is rightly mine because they were too weak or not as smart as I am."
~
Now stepping back and appreciating nature on planet earth is it not evident the statement above is a recipe for extinction?
BK
**
Thanks Harrison for your efforts, but truly if the circle of philosophers is kept too small, the word will never get out there and truly anybody could be a philosopher if they weren't so busy just trying to get by day-by-day. I appreciate Ponerology if one could make a statement as such given how "dark" the topic is - it needs to be discussed in a wider audience, so that informs the cross-linking indicated above. Cause if you live in a silo or don't get out into the fields, then sometimes that clouds the view.
This reminds me of Plato's when philosophers are kings quote.
What is the purpose of human beings? Of humanity? If we take the developmental lifecycle as a clue, man/woman is born, they develop centers of activity like movement, emotion, words, they learn through experience, centers like intellectual, emotional develop at different stages, the sex center enters at puberty creating some angst, the people get siloed into careers that end and they retire into obscurity.
What we see is the emergence of different functionality in the human being. What functionality can be further developed? If you take Gurdjieff's Fourth Way seriously, there are 2 functional centers in man called the higher emotional center and the higher intellectual center. The first is awakening to your self. The second is awakening to the world's laws, like the law of octaves.
From this point of view, then evolution is developing latent functionality in the human being. Then the focus is what prevents or blocks that evolution and what encourages the new functionality. Does technology improve your ability? If it prevents your inner development, yes.
While we were working and living with honor, to advance the lives of our families, they were scheming to achieve total control. I wonder if there are any who seek power that fall into the non psycho category.
A test would be useful, but the first question, 'Do you seek power over others?' Would disqualify nearly all of the vermin.
The power of these people should be curtailed, but how?
Here's what Lobaczewski recommends: a panel of highly competent psychologists, well respected in their communities and the field, who will have access to certain candidates, their medical and psychiatric history, interviews with people who have known them at various times in their life, or their whole lives, etc. That kind of access is usually enough for a professional to determine if someone is a psychopath. (It's how the PCL-R works.)
To which some will respond, "well, what if the psychologists are all psychopaths?" Which is a fair point, but not a high probability. Underlying all of this is the need for a widespread appreciation of the principle of competence. Psychopaths are notoriously incompetent when it comes to normal human stuff.
"Psychopaths are notoriously incompetent when it comes to normal human stuff." This view seems incredibly simplistic. Are all psychopaths the same? Is it even correct to talk of 'psychopaths' as though it is a monolithic category or it is more correct to talk of 'psychopathic tendencies' that varies in distribution across and within individuals? What about the idea of highly "functional psychopaths", that is, psychopaths with social conscience? To suppose "psychopaths" could be objectively and distinctively identified seems like another naive idea destined to fail. That's just my humble opinion.
When I use the word on its own like that, I'm talking about full-blown psychopaths (i.e. those who would score 30-40 on the PCL-R). When you read accounts and descriptions of diagnosed psychopaths, it is remarkable how similar they are. As for psychopathic tendencies, even those are so rare in the general population that, even if there IS a distribution, it's still intuitive and mostly correct to divide humanity into the two groups. The area of overlap is fairly small, demographic-wise.
I wouldn't say functional psychopaths (and by that I mean so-called successful psychopaths) have a social conscience, just better impulse control. But they're still, as a rule, terrible parents, unreliable workers, and socially parasitic.
Let me refer you to the definition of psychopath perhaps simplistic but easily understood typed above (or below as the case may be in time):
~
"Any thing I can take from others is rightly mine because they were too weak or not as smart as I am."
~
I consider this accurate cause it reflect "individuality" taken to a Darwin extreme...and that sad thing is, as Kropotkin understood, that was never what Darwin espoused. Truly at the end of the day, species that learn Mutual Aid are the ones most likely to survive and this is something pschos who focus only on individual ambitions seem to have been "sickened" with, but their sickness likely is informed by a group of psychos who continue to perpetuate the lie that they are somehow "superior" only cause they got the funds I reckon - well, time will tell, but if you care not about others and only focus on what you can obtain individually - that to me seems to be a recipe for easy entry to Hell.
Regardless, those of us care about our neighbors need to up the game cause the time for philosopher talk is coming to an end if the scales aren't balanced - the time for action is upon us and I hope you have made preparations.
Philosophers in Ivory Towers sweet and easy as smart and wise as they may be make no difference when the shit hits the fan if they don't even know how to have a garden.
"Never"? You missed the next part of my reply. "Underlying all of this is the need for a widespread appreciation of the principle of competence." There are plenty of extremely competent psychologists who would perform such a job just fine. The problem nowadays is, like you say, ideological capture. That is fixable.
Do you seek some degree of power (or control) over your children? Your spouse? Your business associates? Don't you deserve to have a certain amount of power of control over these other people? Not total control, but at least your fair share. That is the real dynamic. The psychopath MUST have total control, for he feels threatened by the ability of others to make their own choices. If you ask a psychopath, however, if he wishes to have total control over everyone around him, he will probably deny it (lie to your face). So your test must be observational, not a self-assessment.
I hesitate to address them each individually. So many of these assumptions come from the realm of materialistic science. They are based on some VERY basic assumptions about life that could very well be incorrect. If they are incorrect, a complete re-think would be needed. And that's where I stand in this discussion: A complete re-think IS needed.
That said, there are a certain number of workable principles that can be derived from experience without revising our basic assumptions. I have to respect that fact.
It's a little like trying to apply quantum mechanics to something like mechanical engineering. It just isn't really necessary. Yet if you try to apply the gross principles of mechanisms to the world of quantum phenomena, your predictions will be incorrect.
The human psyche resides in the realm of the "quantum world." Not quite literally, but almost. If your try to understand all of life from the point of view of physical systems, you will ultimately fail because life at its highest level in NOT a physical system, it is a causative, creative system.
We have an analogy in modern life, which is engineering. Engineers invent things that - for all intents and purposes - are totally new. Yet they must account for the material environments that their creations exist in. They must respect the "rules of the road" regardless of how innovative their designs are. But who are these engineers, in the context of this analogy? They exist, for all intents and purposes, outside of the systems they design. Their bodies don't but THEY DO. And this is the secret, you could say, to their creative ability.
The designers of living systems existed totally outside of the systems they created. Though many if not all of them today have lost track of the fact that they invented the systems they are now trapped in, the fact that they were the original inventors does give us the hope that the design process may be remembered enough to enable them to free themselves from their invention, should they choose to do so.
Within the context of a living system that has little or no awareness that it was created (and could be un-created, or re-created) then yes, you have what amounts to a slow death spiral. But if the creators of these systems can restore their creative superiority, then the future becomes an open book, perhaps even hopeful.
Thanks, Larry, but without a reference to a specific part of the article, I'm not quite sure which idea this is responding to.
Also, are you suggesting that there's nothing to worry about, because everything will turn out okay, even if we take actions otherwise guaranteed to result in self-destruction? If so, I don't think that's how it works. It's a two-way street, and if we fail, there's nothing that will swoop in to save us. Human life on planet Earth, that is.
I was trying to respond to the general question of can we make things better, or not? Is it worth even trying? My answer was that yes, we can improve conditions if we stop relying on materialist answers ("technology") and start relying on ourselves. I think our biggest block is not understanding our own situation, thinking we are just animals that have been evolving on Earth for a few million years. That attitude won't get us where we really want to go. If we can become more certain of the actual situation here, then we can change it for the better for real.
That is fair but "certainty" is not easily obtained and the reality is can there ever be certainty on anything?
~
Well, yes I think is the answer simple. For me I'm certain time moves in only one direct - the future. How the future unfolds is most uncertain, but all one can do is live a life of principle and then let the chips fall where they will I reckon.
~
A simple principle easily expressed but not acted upon is "do no harm". The nuance of it is how to respond to harm evident caused by others apparently not in concurrence with said principle but acting out of other desires apparently. When the acts of others not ascribing to said principle reach the point where ones desire not to harm others is in conflict with all the harm evidently being caused, then is it not within the mind of any principled person to defend their principles even if the outcome of that is harm upon those causing large-scale harm to so many innocent?
~
So what is there to say other than tis a delicate balance I reckon, but I won't turn the other cheek against those who have pushed poison on the peasants and I want them to face justice in the here and now.
Certainty is an individual thing. The more certain you are, the more able you are to manifest more ethical outcomes for yourself and those around you. This is a very high-level concept, but here we are reaching into higher-level concepts.
Human "justice" is a farce, and certainly not based on higher level concepts.
Regarding time: It doesn't move; WE move, thus creating the sensation of passing time.
Regarding chips falling: Those who aren't certain enough will not feel that they are in control of their own lives. But the fact is that you create your own future as you move and change. We do have a problem with our common future, as it is a combination of everybody's intentions. But the more of us who develop good intentions, the better.
Harrison- I think a phenomenon of corroboration is occurring. In thought leadership and in journalism, you need independent corroboration on a societal claim to start with three of your peer class. I have known since 2018 a socialist revolutionary tactic is to weaponize the mentally ill; who incidentally also make up a significant portion of US prison populations. We may need to ‘democratize’ and lower the cost of access to Outpatient Therapy Centers to concentrate treatment for Cluster-B disorders with: EFT, EMDR, DBT, vagus nerve stimulation therapies and Stellate Ganglion block to make our society far less evil. We could offer this to prisons as rehabilitation. Beyond, this to recognize reality from irreality demands that we stop validating “the struggle” as real. Sounds cool. Isn’t real.
We may need to ‘democratize’ and lower the cost of access to Therapy Centers to concentrate treatment for Cluster-B disorders with: EFT, EMDR, DBT, vagus nerve stimulation therapies and Stellate Ganglion block to make our society far less evil.
~
Now, gracious me, who gets to decide who has a disorder I inquire for the sake of discourse.
Treatment itself isn't the same as incarceration. It's not a thing to take personally. What do you know about outpatient therapies or the treatments I listed? If you are already in prison or confined to facility by court assignment, the treatments themselves can still assist a person with self-regulation. If a school counselor can obstruct parental concern for something like, gender dysphoria, the least they can do is refer them to an outpatient skill development center for Cluster B related symptoms - with or without a formal diagnosis. The point is to not politicize healthcare and to address psychiatric prognosis that represent 'evil' in our society.
Moreover, the origin of "psychopathy" I think you falsely assume is in mental illness - which is basically a label in many ways, even though I know it is real but it is nuanced.
Is that something you appreciate or do you think others need therapy?
There's a way to perform a remunerative or rehabilitative treatment without branding a person with a mental illness that puts them in a box for the rest of their lives. There are misdiagnoses all the time. The point is to be well.
We all want to be well, but there are some judgements been made lately that are very flawed.
The obvious mental illness in our faces is collective in a way and just like Mutual Aid leads to survival per both Darwin and Kroptkin, Mutual Harm leads to destruction of a failed species evident.
So - one thing leads to another and now we are witness of Mutual Harm and all its effects and how it harms all of us - how it affects us - I don't know about you, and whether I'm mentally ill or not makes no effing difference - I'm tired of Mutual Harm.
It seems easy solutions beckons but that depends upon will and the ability for some to learn hard lesson I reckon and look in the mirror direct and say: I am not a puppet.
~
I don't think it is advisable at this time to advocate for some sort of system to take those deemed unfit and give them treatment when the whole effing world is truly on the precipice of disaster.
I don't know you. I also know and have come to terms with the true fact I cannot control the thinking and opinions of other people. There's a bright line there. I try to be Stoic about that boundary by not taking responsibility for things that are not mine. I have enough responsibility in my own sphere of control that organizes my priorities. That being said, if an outpatient therapy setting for dominantly self-administrated work threatens you, I would be curious as to why.
Thought provoking - glad to see McGilchrist in there. ps has Schellenberger acknowledged your existence yet? I have tried to raise awareness through his collegues but no joy...
He liked my comment on his article! ;)
For the sake of fair disclosure, I would like to acknowledge that I have linked to this site from here:
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/what-i-learned-in-the-past-week/comment/41576128#comment-41611477?utm_source=activity_item
~
Edit - let me add this as typed there:
**
Wow - this statement I believe is the definition of a psychopath:
~
"Any thing I can take from others is rightly mine because they were too weak or not as smart as I am."
~
Now stepping back and appreciating nature on planet earth is it not evident the statement above is a recipe for extinction?
BK
**
Thanks Harrison for your efforts, but truly if the circle of philosophers is kept too small, the word will never get out there and truly anybody could be a philosopher if they weren't so busy just trying to get by day-by-day. I appreciate Ponerology if one could make a statement as such given how "dark" the topic is - it needs to be discussed in a wider audience, so that informs the cross-linking indicated above. Cause if you live in a silo or don't get out into the fields, then sometimes that clouds the view.
This reminds me of Plato's when philosophers are kings quote.
What is the purpose of human beings? Of humanity? If we take the developmental lifecycle as a clue, man/woman is born, they develop centers of activity like movement, emotion, words, they learn through experience, centers like intellectual, emotional develop at different stages, the sex center enters at puberty creating some angst, the people get siloed into careers that end and they retire into obscurity.
What we see is the emergence of different functionality in the human being. What functionality can be further developed? If you take Gurdjieff's Fourth Way seriously, there are 2 functional centers in man called the higher emotional center and the higher intellectual center. The first is awakening to your self. The second is awakening to the world's laws, like the law of octaves.
From this point of view, then evolution is developing latent functionality in the human being. Then the focus is what prevents or blocks that evolution and what encourages the new functionality. Does technology improve your ability? If it prevents your inner development, yes.
On a side note, has your mindmatters ended?
MindMatters just on hold, but should be back very soon. We have 2 episodes in the can, just waiting on editing!
Thanks. I look forward to mindmatters broadcasts.
While we were working and living with honor, to advance the lives of our families, they were scheming to achieve total control. I wonder if there are any who seek power that fall into the non psycho category.
A test would be useful, but the first question, 'Do you seek power over others?' Would disqualify nearly all of the vermin.
The power of these people should be curtailed, but how?
Here's what Lobaczewski recommends: a panel of highly competent psychologists, well respected in their communities and the field, who will have access to certain candidates, their medical and psychiatric history, interviews with people who have known them at various times in their life, or their whole lives, etc. That kind of access is usually enough for a professional to determine if someone is a psychopath. (It's how the PCL-R works.)
To which some will respond, "well, what if the psychologists are all psychopaths?" Which is a fair point, but not a high probability. Underlying all of this is the need for a widespread appreciation of the principle of competence. Psychopaths are notoriously incompetent when it comes to normal human stuff.
I think this is a fair summary of the most available current methods.
"Psychopaths are notoriously incompetent when it comes to normal human stuff." This view seems incredibly simplistic. Are all psychopaths the same? Is it even correct to talk of 'psychopaths' as though it is a monolithic category or it is more correct to talk of 'psychopathic tendencies' that varies in distribution across and within individuals? What about the idea of highly "functional psychopaths", that is, psychopaths with social conscience? To suppose "psychopaths" could be objectively and distinctively identified seems like another naive idea destined to fail. That's just my humble opinion.
When I use the word on its own like that, I'm talking about full-blown psychopaths (i.e. those who would score 30-40 on the PCL-R). When you read accounts and descriptions of diagnosed psychopaths, it is remarkable how similar they are. As for psychopathic tendencies, even those are so rare in the general population that, even if there IS a distribution, it's still intuitive and mostly correct to divide humanity into the two groups. The area of overlap is fairly small, demographic-wise.
I wouldn't say functional psychopaths (and by that I mean so-called successful psychopaths) have a social conscience, just better impulse control. But they're still, as a rule, terrible parents, unreliable workers, and socially parasitic.
I believe this is correct.
Let me refer you to the definition of psychopath perhaps simplistic but easily understood typed above (or below as the case may be in time):
~
"Any thing I can take from others is rightly mine because they were too weak or not as smart as I am."
~
I consider this accurate cause it reflect "individuality" taken to a Darwin extreme...and that sad thing is, as Kropotkin understood, that was never what Darwin espoused. Truly at the end of the day, species that learn Mutual Aid are the ones most likely to survive and this is something pschos who focus only on individual ambitions seem to have been "sickened" with, but their sickness likely is informed by a group of psychos who continue to perpetuate the lie that they are somehow "superior" only cause they got the funds I reckon - well, time will tell, but if you care not about others and only focus on what you can obtain individually - that to me seems to be a recipe for easy entry to Hell.
Regardless, those of us care about our neighbors need to up the game cause the time for philosopher talk is coming to an end if the scales aren't balanced - the time for action is upon us and I hope you have made preparations.
Philosophers in Ivory Towers sweet and easy as smart and wise as they may be make no difference when the shit hits the fan if they don't even know how to have a garden.
Psychology is an ideologically captured pseudo-science. You could never trust such a panel.
"Never"? You missed the next part of my reply. "Underlying all of this is the need for a widespread appreciation of the principle of competence." There are plenty of extremely competent psychologists who would perform such a job just fine. The problem nowadays is, like you say, ideological capture. That is fixable.
Nevertheless, I see the test step as the first thing to be targeted for gaming.
Do you seek some degree of power (or control) over your children? Your spouse? Your business associates? Don't you deserve to have a certain amount of power of control over these other people? Not total control, but at least your fair share. That is the real dynamic. The psychopath MUST have total control, for he feels threatened by the ability of others to make their own choices. If you ask a psychopath, however, if he wishes to have total control over everyone around him, he will probably deny it (lie to your face). So your test must be observational, not a self-assessment.
You have touched many many points here, Harrison.
I hesitate to address them each individually. So many of these assumptions come from the realm of materialistic science. They are based on some VERY basic assumptions about life that could very well be incorrect. If they are incorrect, a complete re-think would be needed. And that's where I stand in this discussion: A complete re-think IS needed.
That said, there are a certain number of workable principles that can be derived from experience without revising our basic assumptions. I have to respect that fact.
It's a little like trying to apply quantum mechanics to something like mechanical engineering. It just isn't really necessary. Yet if you try to apply the gross principles of mechanisms to the world of quantum phenomena, your predictions will be incorrect.
The human psyche resides in the realm of the "quantum world." Not quite literally, but almost. If your try to understand all of life from the point of view of physical systems, you will ultimately fail because life at its highest level in NOT a physical system, it is a causative, creative system.
We have an analogy in modern life, which is engineering. Engineers invent things that - for all intents and purposes - are totally new. Yet they must account for the material environments that their creations exist in. They must respect the "rules of the road" regardless of how innovative their designs are. But who are these engineers, in the context of this analogy? They exist, for all intents and purposes, outside of the systems they design. Their bodies don't but THEY DO. And this is the secret, you could say, to their creative ability.
The designers of living systems existed totally outside of the systems they created. Though many if not all of them today have lost track of the fact that they invented the systems they are now trapped in, the fact that they were the original inventors does give us the hope that the design process may be remembered enough to enable them to free themselves from their invention, should they choose to do so.
Within the context of a living system that has little or no awareness that it was created (and could be un-created, or re-created) then yes, you have what amounts to a slow death spiral. But if the creators of these systems can restore their creative superiority, then the future becomes an open book, perhaps even hopeful.
Thanks, Larry, but without a reference to a specific part of the article, I'm not quite sure which idea this is responding to.
Also, are you suggesting that there's nothing to worry about, because everything will turn out okay, even if we take actions otherwise guaranteed to result in self-destruction? If so, I don't think that's how it works. It's a two-way street, and if we fail, there's nothing that will swoop in to save us. Human life on planet Earth, that is.
I was trying to respond to the general question of can we make things better, or not? Is it worth even trying? My answer was that yes, we can improve conditions if we stop relying on materialist answers ("technology") and start relying on ourselves. I think our biggest block is not understanding our own situation, thinking we are just animals that have been evolving on Earth for a few million years. That attitude won't get us where we really want to go. If we can become more certain of the actual situation here, then we can change it for the better for real.
That is fair but "certainty" is not easily obtained and the reality is can there ever be certainty on anything?
~
Well, yes I think is the answer simple. For me I'm certain time moves in only one direct - the future. How the future unfolds is most uncertain, but all one can do is live a life of principle and then let the chips fall where they will I reckon.
~
A simple principle easily expressed but not acted upon is "do no harm". The nuance of it is how to respond to harm evident caused by others apparently not in concurrence with said principle but acting out of other desires apparently. When the acts of others not ascribing to said principle reach the point where ones desire not to harm others is in conflict with all the harm evidently being caused, then is it not within the mind of any principled person to defend their principles even if the outcome of that is harm upon those causing large-scale harm to so many innocent?
~
So what is there to say other than tis a delicate balance I reckon, but I won't turn the other cheek against those who have pushed poison on the peasants and I want them to face justice in the here and now.
Certainty is an individual thing. The more certain you are, the more able you are to manifest more ethical outcomes for yourself and those around you. This is a very high-level concept, but here we are reaching into higher-level concepts.
Human "justice" is a farce, and certainly not based on higher level concepts.
Regarding time: It doesn't move; WE move, thus creating the sensation of passing time.
Regarding chips falling: Those who aren't certain enough will not feel that they are in control of their own lives. But the fact is that you create your own future as you move and change. We do have a problem with our common future, as it is a combination of everybody's intentions. But the more of us who develop good intentions, the better.
To be well. No labels, no branding, no judgement, no stigma.
Welness therapy it is then. *rolls eyes*
Harrison- I think a phenomenon of corroboration is occurring. In thought leadership and in journalism, you need independent corroboration on a societal claim to start with three of your peer class. I have known since 2018 a socialist revolutionary tactic is to weaponize the mentally ill; who incidentally also make up a significant portion of US prison populations. We may need to ‘democratize’ and lower the cost of access to Outpatient Therapy Centers to concentrate treatment for Cluster-B disorders with: EFT, EMDR, DBT, vagus nerve stimulation therapies and Stellate Ganglion block to make our society far less evil. We could offer this to prisons as rehabilitation. Beyond, this to recognize reality from irreality demands that we stop validating “the struggle” as real. Sounds cool. Isn’t real.
To be specific about it you typed:
~
We may need to ‘democratize’ and lower the cost of access to Therapy Centers to concentrate treatment for Cluster-B disorders with: EFT, EMDR, DBT, vagus nerve stimulation therapies and Stellate Ganglion block to make our society far less evil.
~
Now, gracious me, who gets to decide who has a disorder I inquire for the sake of discourse.
Competent people. There are plenty of them, and they accurately diagnose Cluster Bs every day.
But even if you accurately diagnose something but don't get to the root matter - than a forest walker wonders - what good does that accomplish?
At the very least you can identify a predator.
I reckon time to study up on the "Cluster B's" as so labelled.
To be frank what you suggest sounds like the recipe of putting folks innocent away who don't agree with you and I find that offensive.
So please elaborate on what you are saying if I got it wrong what you are trying to express.
Treatment itself isn't the same as incarceration. It's not a thing to take personally. What do you know about outpatient therapies or the treatments I listed? If you are already in prison or confined to facility by court assignment, the treatments themselves can still assist a person with self-regulation. If a school counselor can obstruct parental concern for something like, gender dysphoria, the least they can do is refer them to an outpatient skill development center for Cluster B related symptoms - with or without a formal diagnosis. The point is to not politicize healthcare and to address psychiatric prognosis that represent 'evil' in our society.
Lastly when it comes to evil that is beyond the discussion here, but to place that upon those mentally ill seems telling in your line of thought.
I say this with no offense, but evil is real.
I learned that mostly in 2022, and truly the time is at hand.
Moreover, the origin of "psychopathy" I think you falsely assume is in mental illness - which is basically a label in many ways, even though I know it is real but it is nuanced.
Is that something you appreciate or do you think others need therapy?
No doubt on that, but who judges those in need of treatment is all I was saying...that is a precarious road and leads to bad ideas.
There's a way to perform a remunerative or rehabilitative treatment without branding a person with a mental illness that puts them in a box for the rest of their lives. There are misdiagnoses all the time. The point is to be well.
We all want to be well, but there are some judgements been made lately that are very flawed.
The obvious mental illness in our faces is collective in a way and just like Mutual Aid leads to survival per both Darwin and Kroptkin, Mutual Harm leads to destruction of a failed species evident.
So - one thing leads to another and now we are witness of Mutual Harm and all its effects and how it harms all of us - how it affects us - I don't know about you, and whether I'm mentally ill or not makes no effing difference - I'm tired of Mutual Harm.
It seems easy solutions beckons but that depends upon will and the ability for some to learn hard lesson I reckon and look in the mirror direct and say: I am not a puppet.
~
I don't think it is advisable at this time to advocate for some sort of system to take those deemed unfit and give them treatment when the whole effing world is truly on the precipice of disaster.
So consider that please counselor.
I don't know you. I also know and have come to terms with the true fact I cannot control the thinking and opinions of other people. There's a bright line there. I try to be Stoic about that boundary by not taking responsibility for things that are not mine. I have enough responsibility in my own sphere of control that organizes my priorities. That being said, if an outpatient therapy setting for dominantly self-administrated work threatens you, I would be curious as to why.